First, it's not true that the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was ignored by the world. Europeans made much of it at the time, since it was convenient propaganda against Germany and its Turkish ally. The fate of the Armenians was recounted in schools in the West for decades -- as was the fate of the Belgians at the hands of the Kaiser and his Huns.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Hitler referred mockingly to the Armenian tragedy. As far as we know, that's an urban myth.
Thirdly, this was World War I. Turkey was at war with Imperial Russia. The Armenians inhabited the border territory and their allegiances were mighty ambiguous to say the least. How necessary is it to draw a diagram of that complication? Eastern Armenia was a separatist threat to a country at war, with hostile populations living on the disputed border next to the enemy.
Finally, there was a guerrilla war being waged by Armenian nationalists. Now, the Ottomans have a long history of cruelty to other peoples, both Christian and Arab. Obviously, the crimes committed, by ethnic Turks in uniform, in the ethnic cleansing of the Borderlands, were horrendous, and is properly the main issue of this film. But is this film the best way to expose this event?
It should be asked why Egoyan made the film. To militate for Armenian nationalism? pay a debt to his own ethnic group? or explore his roots? It doesn't work as a thematic puzzle, and it's clearly not a thoughtful debate about the problem of history/perspective.
A simple debate format, with clearly understood narratives overlaying cinematic techniques, would have given Egoyan the basis for exploring his themes and obsessions. Instead, we get the usual Egoyan exhibition, with arch constructs overlaying arch dialogues overlaying sentimental poses and positions. Egoyan seems blind to simple detail and deaf to credible vocabulary. Yet all successful movie-making begins with that -- realism and real life -- and moves carefully into abstraction, not vice-versa. Finally, the fact that he makes movies to provide employment for his wife is yet another reason to make a wide pass around this material.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Hitler referred mockingly to the Armenian tragedy. As far as we know, that's an urban myth.
Thirdly, this was World War I. Turkey was at war with Imperial Russia. The Armenians inhabited the border territory and their allegiances were mighty ambiguous to say the least. How necessary is it to draw a diagram of that complication? Eastern Armenia was a separatist threat to a country at war, with hostile populations living on the disputed border next to the enemy.
Finally, there was a guerrilla war being waged by Armenian nationalists. Now, the Ottomans have a long history of cruelty to other peoples, both Christian and Arab. Obviously, the crimes committed, by ethnic Turks in uniform, in the ethnic cleansing of the Borderlands, were horrendous, and is properly the main issue of this film. But is this film the best way to expose this event?
It should be asked why Egoyan made the film. To militate for Armenian nationalism? pay a debt to his own ethnic group? or explore his roots? It doesn't work as a thematic puzzle, and it's clearly not a thoughtful debate about the problem of history/perspective.
A simple debate format, with clearly understood narratives overlaying cinematic techniques, would have given Egoyan the basis for exploring his themes and obsessions. Instead, we get the usual Egoyan exhibition, with arch constructs overlaying arch dialogues overlaying sentimental poses and positions. Egoyan seems blind to simple detail and deaf to credible vocabulary. Yet all successful movie-making begins with that -- realism and real life -- and moves carefully into abstraction, not vice-versa. Finally, the fact that he makes movies to provide employment for his wife is yet another reason to make a wide pass around this material.
Tell Your Friends